Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:28 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:37 -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > > There are a lot of comments in the code which imply that vacuuming is > > not implemented but in fact from what I can see it is -- sort of. It > > does rewrite the bitmap in bmbulkde

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Vladimir Sitnikov
BTW: is there a framework to test recovery related features? The only idea I could take from the top of my head is to comment out all the page writes and leave only WAL logging. Then crash database at random and verify if the index still performs as expected. Regards, Vladimir Sitnikov

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 16:53 -0700, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: > The major thing there is to get the modifications right. There is no > much sense in reviewing "wrong" code against "locking issues". I didn't say there were no other bugs, nor would I know, only that I had reviewed the locking issues

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Vladimir Sitnikov
> I looked at that aspect of the patch specifically a few weeks back while > checking for possible issues with Hot Standby. IIRC the patch is fairly > careful with locking and uses Exclusive locks extensively throughout. I > looked at both the theory and the implementation. Unless Gianni changed >

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:28 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:37 -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > > Secondly the locking seems to be a bit overoptimistic. I'm pretty sure > > you have to take an exclusive lock on an index page any time you make > > any data modifications in index p

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:37 -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > Secondly the locking seems to be a bit overoptimistic. I'm pretty sure > you have to take an exclusive lock on an index page any time you make > any data modifications in index pages -- even if you're just setting a > bit and not moving any d

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Indexes patch (was Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback)

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Stark
On 2008-10-31, Gianni Ciolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > following the useful feedback that we received from this list, we > would like to submit the patch for Bitmap Indexes for the november > CommitFest (joint work of me with Gabriele Bartolini, starting from > Gavin Sherry's patch). I ski